mutualismbeneficialismfandomcom-20200214-history
The ARIS Campaign
Background The ARIS Campaign was a Google+ collection in which Mutualist-Beneficialist ARIS-Komuniszt explained his political views to other mappers and G+ users. The ARIS Campaign was quite influencial in Mutualist-Beneficialist writings and later thought, and outlined many of the earliest principles. Until the documentary came out, the few articles on the page were the go to points for Mutualist-Beneficialists. It had 34 followers and 8 posts before it was discontinued. Articles on Mutualism-Beneficialism Mutualism-Beneficialism Introduction Aim Many people have recently been asking about my ideology, and are confused that I am a non-Marxist communist. Here I will explain some of my main principles to the achieving of True Communism, and to what the terms I use mean. Terminology Firstly, we must, in order to achieve true communism, distinguish the communist societal structure, for me made up of two major points, mutualism and beneficialism. These are my own terms, and they are just as much about the implementation of these as the state in which they finish, which I will refer to here simply as 'Communism'. Mutualism Objective Mutualism, as in Biology, is the idea of help given and received, one idea that distinguishes true communism from so-called 'transitional' Marxist socialism (I shall refer to this as socialism for shorthand). Whilst capitalism and socialism preach independence from others, mutualism goes on the fact that humans need one another to do their own job, instead of everyone providing for themselves. Therefore, collectivisation is extremely important in mutualism, as is the lack of a currency. The idea principally is whole world collectivisation, with all goods and services effectively free for giving and taking. Process But, of course, this cannot be achieved straight from capitalism - which inadvertently rewards greed and corruption in power inequality, and nor can this be achieved from socialism as this element of capitalism from currency still harbours this mentality of greed. However, we can see full collectivisation has occurred in ancient civilisations, for example in Native American tribes, where direct barter or currency was non-existent. The reason, however, that communes out of capitalist / socialist regimes have not worked in such a way is due to the exposure to this capitalist / socialist mentality of greed, corruption and power inequality. Therefore, to achieve mutualism, the participants must have no exposure to money, or power inequality. The way to limit this exposure is through education and upbringing - if a child is brought up in a mutualist / communist society with no direct barter or money, these ideas will not be fermented into the child's mind, and they will naturally only take what they need and continue to work with the knowledge that this is the way it must be at to retain the system as working and to save humanity. I have developed plans for creating this education plan / procedure which I shall release later, but it requires the area the child is brought up and educated in to be self-sufficient 'economically' or else capitalist trade will plague the ideas of the child the way that a mutualist education program would be trying to prevent. In short, this would mean this mutualist education program, instead of socialism, would be the transitional period into true communism. This is mutualism. Beneficialism Objective Beneficialism is the other half of my ideology. The idea is that the state is beneficial to the needs of the people. Therefore, to achieve this, the result of beneficialism is equal political and personal power, which in socialism and capitalism is inequal (there is a dictator / representative democracy which has more personal rights than the other people). The result of beneficialism is therefore full equality, politically as well as personally, meaning direct democracy would be in practice, with no political leader - that job would be shared to each and every person of the state (hence differing beneficialism from anarchism), where in theory anyone can vote on or propose a law. This would also, like mutualism, cause unity, as the rights, personal powers, and court cases would be enforced and determined by the state, standard for everyone, yet determined by a collective decision of the people. As for economic power, this would not exist, due to mutualism. The idea principally is that everyone (with equal voting meaning) determined the collective laws for each other, differing to anarchism where everyone determines their own laws for themselves personally, causing disunity and chaos. Process So how do we create beneficialism? Again, it requires the education system and reform. However, this is easier to achieve than mutualism, and yet this must be put in place after mutualism in order to prove mutualism works before people automatically assume it wouldn't. Again, it requires a lack of exposure to greed and corruption as a child to make sure the spirit of voting is not purely for personal interest. It also involves the building of many facilities where this can take place and an efficient communication system between them. However, this can easily be done by creating jobs. It would be even easier when mutualism is achieved as therefore they require no pay for their work. After implementation of the two, true communism would be achieved. This is beneficialism. Response If you have any questions, please post as comments, do not pose statements if possible, as I do not want to get into debate on this particular post. I will answer these in time, and I shall also share the mutualist-beneficialist plan and its logistics. The Possible Structure of Beneficialism Introduction Beneficialism Beneficialism is one of the halves of this ideology and is therefore it is very important that this is achieved to create a true communist society. However, there are some obvious 'problems' with beneficialism that I would like to address and respond to. Purpose It is important to note that beneficialism is a process, not the outcome: the outcome is true communism. Of course I can understand why there would be so many problems with direct democracy in a capitalist / socialist society, but the aim of beneficialism is to remove these problems for communism. Socialism does not actively do this in my opinion, and it therefore cannot transition society from capitalism to communism. Context Finally, remember that one beneficialism starts, mutualism would've already been achieved by this point. This is important contextually. Practicality Problem One major problem that has been suggested about beneficialism is that it would be difficult, possibly impossible, to form direct democracy as a cause of there being just too many rules and too little time for everyone. This has some degree of legitimacy as not everyone can be a politician full-time. Therefore, the capitalist answer is representative democracy, which also creates corruption. Solution So how to solve this issue? Again it is important to remember that by this time, mutualism would've been achieved. Therefore, the requisite buildings and communication network would be able to be built free as a result. If there was a one hour session every day for all eligible voters (probably 16+, obviously this could be changed by the direct democracy when it comes into effect. However, a rising possibility and a concept I am warming to is edemocracy, the idea that democracy is done via an app or via the internet. This, for me, could be better than sit-down democracy, as therefore new law propositions would be instantly updated to someone's feed on the app, for them to answer whenever over the course of 24 hours or so (again, this period could be determined by the direct democracy). Everyone would have this device and this app as a result of the achieving of mutualism. What's more, the app could be designed to structure one's feed based on interest - issues that are really important to the person in question (private data from previous law answering) and local issues would be near the top, other issues further down. There would also be filters to apply if wanted. What's more is that there could be a 'cool down time' instituted on the app, possibly around a month (to be determined by the direct democracy, again) before one can propose a new law again. Also each person could have a certain number of emergency laws in case they have run out, but using them would forfeit their ability to propose laws for a longer amount of time. Abuse of the System Problem Another issue concerning direct democracy for a lot of people is that they are under the impression people will 'abuse voting', that it could cause discrimination and harm minorities, or people could be imprisoned for little to no reason other than a grudge. Solution Again, remember mutualism would be done by the time the beneficialist plan would be started. Therefore, education would have completely changed. For one, nobody is born racist, born homophobic or so on. The only reason these are passed down is from influence from people around them, or from scapegoating. The influence idea would be ended in mutualism, as well as a lack of capitalist influence, there would also be a lack of discriminatory influence. As for scapegoating, the aim of mutualism-beneficialism is to create a utopia, in which everyone in theory would be happy as everyone would have what they need, as well as a good deal of political power. Therefore, it would be unlikely someone who was brought up in a mutualist plan would ever propose any law purely due to hatred of minorities, as there would be no reason to hate and so no reason to oppress. As for if this or a 'grudge proposal' was somehow proposed, I doubt it would ever get a majority of the votes (also, each law would have to get a certain amount of yes votes to pass). Recap Agenda Perhaps the most important point is that direct democracy would not be implemented until it would be sure to work, that is the point of beneficialism. This includes not including people from the pre-mutualist era into this direct democracy, however, eventually everyone would've been educated in mutualism. Therefore, if mutualism works (which I believe it would), people would still be in favour of it. Response As always comment questions for me, I have some more points to address, but would like as many as I can. One-Gate Introduction Nationalisation One feature of socialism and communism, which mutualism-beneficialism is very much in support of, is nationalisation, as opposed to private business. This links heavily to the idea of mutualism, in that the people give and recieve from the state, and beneficialism in that things go through the state. Analogy The way mutualism-beneficialism would handle goods, for example, is with the idea of the 'one-gate' method, in the analogy that the providers (portrayed as a farmer), must have to go through one gate to sell their products to the world. This one gate is the state. Making Products Concept The principle idea here is that all the people work together, in mutualism. This would mean, for example, everyone in the phone industry would be working on the same model of phone, encompassing all the best features of all phone models in one device. Process The problems associated with this, obviously, is with the lack of competition, and in a capitalist society this would be problematic. However it is important to remember again the mutualist mentality is very different to the capitalist one in that the people naturally push themselves so as to better society and improve the human race. Another supposed problem is the lack of choice, but with one-gate, the principle is of choice centralisation, that every choice would in theory be available to be picked on the device. Distributing Products Concept With the nationalisation of these industries, distribution would be carried out by the state to make sure every member of the nation in need or want of, for example, a phone, could be able to receive one. This is therefore mutualism and beneficialism in the ideas of distribution as everyone would get all they need through the state. This links to the workers in that they contribute to give their products to the state and receive all they need and want from the state. Process The needs for this involves beneficialism to have taken place to insure a benevolent, people-directed state to organise this distribution fairly. However, once this is achieved, distribution would be relatively simple. Building one-gate as a result would be relatively simple and a part of beneficialism. All that would need to happen would be complete nationalisation. Response If you have any questions on mutualism-beneficialism, remember to ask in the comments as always, I'm planning to answer some more questions soon, but would love more queries as well. Poetry on Mutualism-Beneficialism They Just don't know it yet If you say it’s good in concept, But the ideals can never be met, You are still a Communist, You just don’t know it yet. -- And if you say it won’t work now Cos Stalin ‘ruined’ it, Then you are still a Communist, You just don’t know it yet. -- If you feel poverty’s wrong And you’d do anything to end it, You are still a Communist, You just don’t know it yet. -- And if you disagree with born entitlement, But ‘oppression’ isn’t suited, Then you are still a Communist, You just don’t know it yet. -- If you disagree with Marxism There is another way. You are still a Communist, Follow Mutualism-Beneficialism today!